Can there be a winner in the V.P. Debate?: While I tend to agree that Cheney was the better on substance and preparation (he was wrong about never meeting Edwards before, however as Russert pointed out this morning), and pretty good on presentation, I still think that it sends a bad message to have the Veep look more presidential than the President. Let's face it: if Cheney had any charisma whatsoever, W would still be looking for work (of course with Daddy around, he'd get it).

So the question is, are people voting for W b/c they know they get Cheney, or do they vote for W because they think he still brings something to the table? About the only thing of substance I can come up with, is W's faith-based leanings - clearly, people identify with his born-again spirituality, and like someone with moral convictions w/r/t his stances on the moral issues in domestic politics.

Senator Hair certainly has the Clinton thumb-strike, and the hair. But what he lacks is the ability to laugh at himself. He takes himself way too seriously. Clinton always had that glimmer in his eye that told you, "Hey, I get the joke, but I'm going to do this thing anyway" (and yes, the glimmer meant more than that). Edwards just has this pious drone about poor working americans, my dad in the mill, blah blah blah. And yes, he has represented probably hundreds of poor people, but he never took one pro bono case, and instead, reaped about $150MM in jury awards. I'm not drinking his revival tent kool aid.

So, Cheney victorious, but again, his strengths only undercut W's weaknesses.